(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote: Your position is one of pure arrogance and condescension.

Said the guy who thinks the creator of the universe cares about him personally and made the universe with him in mind. Go fuck yourself, hypocrite.

Whiskey, you made my day.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce

(02-04-2016 05:35 PM)diversesynergy Wrote: If atheism is supposedly the shining beacon for "tolerance", in a world supposedly made so "intolerant" by religion, then some of the posters on these forums are far from paragons of that vision.

If atheism is a shining beacon of anything it would have to be rational thought not tolerance.

If you haven’t figured it out yet atheists have very little patience for twits, twats and fucktards who cloak themselves in the “Truth” without knowing the first thing about how to go about finding it, or even if they stumbled upon it, recognizing it for what it is.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce

If we take a few normal questions and try to give honest answers, then we need a rational way that helps us get to the truth.

How long is that board on the ground ?
I can measure the board 2-3 times and even ask other people to independently measure it. We can compare our results to see if we obtained the same measurement. I can justify my answer to the question by presenting our collective observations of the measurements.

Religiously, how would you go about determining the length of the board ?

Let's try another question.
How did this particular board come to be in the spot on the ground ?
What kind of tree did the board come from ? (Cedar, Ash, Oak, Pine)

Rationally we can make a few assumptions about boards and people. We know how boards are made and we know that people usually buy boards and bring them to a place where they might want to use them.

There could be a number of explanations for how the board came to be in this spot and it's unlikely that any of those explanations would involve angels, ghosts, leprechauns or anything supernatural.

As for the type of wood, we can compare it to the types we know and even test its hardness, the grain or even run a genetic test of the wood. All of these different tests can confirm the type of wood.

The evidence obtained can justify our answer.
We can use a rational, justified step by step analysis to determine the truth of the answers we have given.

Religiously, how would you go about finding the answers and what process would you use to verify your results ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

If we were created by some perfect being, how do you explain people with brain defects. There are people out there that do some really shit things, due to imperfections in their brains. Likewise, there are people that are 50 years old that know less about things around them than your average 7 year old, again due to defects. If your god is real and did that purposely, then he/she/it is not worthy of any respect. If it is a cosmic accident by random chance, then I understand.

I'm sorry that I did not see this earlier given that it was mixed in with a whole bunch of responses to others.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote: True Scotsman - Except that the universe we observe demonstrates time and entropy. That is not conducive to an infinite number of past events, so how do you resolve the “first cause” in a universe of causality based on the available evidence?

Because all the available evidence tells us that existence has metaphysical primacy. Because causality, time and entropy all presuppose existence. It's very important to define the universe. On my view the universe is the sum total of what exists be it matter, energy, time, space, quarks, planets and even things which we don't know about. It is a completely open ended or "universal" concept. It is synonymous with the concept "existence" which denotes everything that exists. Therefore on my view time and entropy and causality only apply withing the universe. Causality presupposes existence. There can be no causes outside of or prior to the universe. It is literally outside of time. That's because the concept "existence" or the "universe" is the first cause. To ask for a cause for existence is a nonsensical question. It is the same as asking what caused causality. The concept "existence" is conceptually irreducible. It does not rest on any prior knowledge. To what would this knowledge refer if not to something that exists? This does not lead to an infinite regress. The regress is cut off by the recognition that existence exists and only existence exists. Existence is not a product of something else. It is not an effect. It is an irreducible primary, absolute and necessary precondition of any causes, time, entropy, ideas, consciousness, and anything else you can name.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote: I can demonstrate your argument is self-imploding very simply:

1. You posit that your brain is ultimately just a passionless result of the causality (or whatever) of this universe.

Not just my brain but everything is a result of causal processes. My bones, my big toe, my hair, my stomach, the rocks in my yard, the trees, the birds, the air, the planet, the solar system, the galaxies but not the universe as a whole. Not existence as such, because there is nothing outside of the universe to cause the universe. It is uncaused, eternal, an absolute. It can not come into or go out of existence. Existence, meaning the sum total of what exists, is the first fact and the first cause and since cause presupposes existence, that is where knowledge must begin. We can not drill down any further than the most fundamental concept neither logically nor metaphysically.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote: 2. You claim that you have arrived at proposition 1 using the available evidence in the universe around you and rational deduction.

Wrong. There are other kinds of reasoning besides deduction. Causality is a general principle. It is arrived at and validated inductively. It is a really easy one too because it is very nearly an axiom. But the validation of causality is done by direct perception. We can observe entities in action and causality is the identity of actions. No deduction here.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote: 3. You 100% rely on you own brain to have come up with the proposition, to gather the evidence, to conclude on the evidence, and indeed to set the parameters of what you consider to be logically valid or not in how you choose to base your conclusion!

Wrong again. I did not come up with the law of causality or logic. That was discovered long before I was born and by people much smarter than me. What I can do and have done is validate these principles for myself. But yes, when it comes to gathering evidence and coming to conclusions I do rely on my brain 100%. How could this possibly be controversial???? I take it you do not use your brain to gather evidence and come to conclusions logically. This explains a lot.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote: 4. You 100% cannot prove that your own brain is a reliable tool in the first place, and if you propose it is just derived from the “stuff” of this universe then you have no reason to assume this either.

And this is 100% not necessary and would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept if I did try to prove that my brain is reliable. You are making a very basic error in thinking that if something isn't proved it must be accepted on faith but this is so very wrong. There are other types of validation, which is a concept wider than proof, other than deduction. Many things and many of the most important philosophical principles are validated by direct perception or by being corollary to things which we directly perceive. If I've grasped the concept "proof" then my brain is working perfectly and I can rely on it. Since my brain and consciousness are preconditional to me proving anything, their reliability is axiomatic. I don't think you understand what it means that a concept is axiomatic or that knowledge is hierarchical. This is your problem. I have every reason to accept the reliability of my senses and my brain no matter what they are made of. This is a total non sequiter . The job of my senses is to bring me awareness of objects. If I'm aware of anything at all my senses are working properly. The job of my reasoning faculty is to identify and integrate the material brought to me by my senses in the form of concepts. If I'm able to look out at the world and form the concept "existence" then my reasoning faculty is working properly and I can rely on them. The reliability of my senses and reasoning faculty are implicit in my first conscious grasp of the fact that something exists and that I know it. Thus the reliability of my senses and brain are validated by direct perception. No proof is necessary and indeed if my senses and brain were not reliable I couldn't prove anything. The fact that you do not know this is evidence of the mind crippling effects of religion on the Human mind. These are such simple and easy to understand concepts that it is a tragedy of biblical proportions that your worldview has left you helpless and alone in their face. You want to come here and lecture us about rationality and you don't even have the slightest clue of what it is or how it works.

As I said, there is much I could teach you. Drop all that mystical nonsense and start learning to think.

(03-04-2016 10:38 AM)diversesynergy Wrote: -My worldview suggests we are created in the image of a rational creator, which if true would make me a rational being by definition.

Yes and it does so in contradiction to the most fundamental facts of reality, the axioms and the primacy of existence. You can not define yourself into being a rational being. Rationality is a choice. Simply defining yourself as rational does not make you rational. The choice to accept reason as your only means of knowledge and the only guide to your choices is what makes one rational. You have chosen to abandon reason all together and accept things on the basis of faith. Until you have abandoned faith there is nothing I can teach you. You are lost.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick

It's almost over for the Christians folks. Presuppositionalism is the last gasp. They've given up on trying to prove their possition and are now resorting to openly attacking reason. They are dropping the pretense of rationality.

No, I don't think it will go away but fewer and fewer people will take it seriously until it becomes the laughing stock it deserves to be.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick

(02-04-2016 03:52 PM)diversesynergy Wrote: Could you ever truly declare that you had "rationally" arrived at that as a conclusion? Because surely such an argument is self-imploding, is it not?

If your very premise is that your own brain is ultimately just a random by-product, then how can you declare that anything you have concluded with your own brain is rational at all?

Two things:

1) Our brains being the culmination of many random events in no way precludes the ability for us to have rational thoughts. I don't know why you think these two things are even related; especially given that the biggest driving random factor (evolution) is something that specifically selects for the ability to survive and humans have effectively "conquered" most other organisms on the planet... it would seem that the ability to reason through things rates pretty high on natural selection.

2) If you want to just reduce everything to absurd half-versions to make arguments, I can throw the same thing back at theists. How can we ever declare to be thinking rationally when our ability to do so is given to us by a god that we cannot trust and who lauds "his foolishness as greater than our wisdom"? If you want to argue that all of reality is created by an entity who's motives and intellect are so alien to us, how can we know anything?